I have never understood what the word 'pure' adds to the word evil. Would we talk of pure good versus good? I think the word is added to underline it in some way and to add some dubious precision. The word evil is so infected with religious connotations that it is hard to get past all the noise and history.

Your argument about philosophical zombies doesn't resonate with me. Humans behave and some of that behavior is fucked up. It might be easier for us, instead of understanding the causes of fucked up behavior, to use othering or zombie style categories.

What do you think you've added to our understanding of evil?

Maybe it would assist if you presented examples of a pure evil act so we could move past theory and explore your ideas in action.

none

I tried to understand your post but I admit, I did not try very hard. I started to bog down and my eyes started to cross at the feeling that you said too much. That's why I can't debate you point by point. I will say this, though: Whenever I hear the term "good" I immediately ask "for who" or "for what'? Likewise, evil. I don't believe in evil. I think there is always something underlying a "bad" act or thought. And even then, I'm brought to "bad for who" and "bad for what"?

Your absolutely worst case scenario could always be attributed to bad wiring. Nature, nurture, or a biological defect. There are also unrelated third parties that benefit from the misfortune of others, intentionally or incidentally. Even if that is a microbe that chows down on a rotting carcass, or a shrink getting paid to listen to a victim work out their shit.

Is there such a thing as "impure evil" in contrast to "pure evil"? What is "pure" about "evil"?

Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil. — AlienFromEarth

What makes a person "good" and what makes a person "evil"? If merely committing an evil act makes someone "pure evil" then I suppose we are all evil, given that most of us either have committed evil acts (graded from trivial to very substantial) or will in the future. Can someone be sort of good and commit a sort of evil act? Visa versa?

Life is vastly more complicated than your conclusion will admit to.

none

The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people. — AlienFromEarth

It's worse than that I think. I posted this on an old thread "What Is Evil" ... (what evil is) with links to further discussions.

:up:

Your absolutely worst case scenario could always be attributed to bad wiring. Nature, nurture, or a biological defect. — James Riley

:up:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

none

The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people. — AlienFromEarth

My wife has a bad temper. Sometimes, with very little provocation, she will say things to me and others that are very hurtful. There is not doubt that she does this intentionally. That cruelty is not reflected in other aspects of her life.

By your definition, I guess she's evil.

none

It's kinda self-explanatory, — AlienFromEarth

There's your problem. It isn't. :smile:

none

so you live in a cave? How is life in the cave. How do you deal with mold in your lungs? — AlienFromEarth

Well Plato will tell you we all live in a cave. It's a key narrative in philosophy.

That aside is being hostile really a way to engage with a topic? Could it be you are missing something? I think the other responses are nailing this. For instance:

Life is vastly more complicated than your conclusion will admit to. — Bitter Crank

none

Its strange for you to drop an OP and then act like a smug prick to everyone who responds. Get humble, your OP is not the rock solid argument you seem to think it is. At best your logic requires explaining, its not that clear to the reader where the strength of your argument lies.

She might be evil, if that's the case, get away from her. However, if she was only expressing anger due to frustration with something, and only meaning to take control of the situation, then what we would say about her behavior is that it was a MISTAKE. — AlienFromEarth

You wrote:

Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil. — AlienFromEarth

I covered this already in the OP, — AlienFromEarth

No, you did not.

so you live in a cave? — AlienFromEarth

You're new here, and you're kind of being an asshole. We already have at least one member who thinks philosophy is mostly insults and condescending remarks. We don't need another one. Play nice.

none

none

i don't know about being hostile, I'm having fun. — AlienFromEarth

The moderators here are a bit trigger happy about getting rid of those who send out what are known as "low quality posts". I think yours meet their standards. I predict you won't be here long. We'll open a pool. I'm down for midnight. Any takers?

I think that's going to do it. We'll see you later.

:lol:
:lol:

….

:lol:

Hysterical :rofl:

Like perfectly hysterical, from your delivery to my out loud laughter.

Look out everyone we’re all going to jail :rofl:
What are you? 10? 12?

:rofl:

↪180 Proof And what are you reasons for saying this? — AlienFromEarth

Apparently my link wasn't worth you making an effort. Nevermind. :shade:

:smirk:

:up:

And of course that's obvious, since the entire internet is flooded with them, and often are even crappy moderators that ban people for bullshit reasons, as is the case on reddit, and well you know so many others. — AlienFromEarth

I was just sittimg here innocently minding my own business and you hurl an insult at me. Evil.

The OP could use work, but is there really anything he is saying that is so foreign to older ideas about happiness/the good? You just sort of naively take it for granted that someone pursues what they want, that what they want is the good, and that all actions of necessity aim towards good absent illness/error. So outside of lots of hand waving about how examples of intentional harm are either justified or the result of mistake (special pleading at its finest), what more is to be said? Man, the rational beast that pursues the good.

Totalizing theory, all counter-examples explained away, and conclusion affirmed because it is definitional.

It seems our problems have doubled over the past 2000 years - first, it was evil, whatever that is, we had to deal with and now, pure evil! This task we're asked to perform is, manifestly, evil, pure evil. :lol:

It's a minute before midnight here, 59 minutes past midnight where you are. And he's still not banned!

Fuckin' slackers.

@Wayfarer

I can't seem to get my hands on the quote but allow me to paraphrase it, the best I can.

I sinned, not towards an end, but because I loved the sin — Some saint (forgot his name)

If you can tell me the name of the saint and the actual quote, I'd be much obliged.

A short analysis of your handle: AlienFromEarth.

Fermi Paradox

1. Are we alone? Don't know! Uncertain!

2. Are they alone? No, 100% No! Certain!

@Bitter Crank@180 Proof@Wayfarer

I found the quote I was looking for.

Doing evil for nothing = Pure Evil?!

I loved not the thing for which I committed the sin but the sin itself — Saint Augustine (Pear Tree, The Fall Of Man)

A more accurate quote:

The evil in me was foul, but I loved it. I loved my own perdition and my own faults, not the things for which I committed wrong, but the wrong itself. — St. Augustine (Confessions Book II, section 4)